Timon Gehr wrote:

>
> This could get a little hairy:
>

A boy's dream?

Chad J wrote:

> I still always thought it funny that we didn't reach for it anyways.

"we"? Surely you meant you ("I"). Hmm? You saw the movie (?). "The Quick, and the Dead". You cannot be quick, for you are not "quick". Thank you, you are not a gunslinger. (Romance, timeout please). "They" "love" the quick shooter, huh. Analogyy to "those who gab, have nothing to say"? (I don't know 'analogy' from 'metaphor'). What does "reach for it" mean? Something about 1984 chimes true.

Oh, but "they" "didn't know". Isn't *that* convenient. Because if you as an individual don't know, it is a crime. But if those in on the take do wrong, it's a free ride to being the next horror, and it becomes "law".

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:11:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> This could get a little hairy:
>>
>> struct S{
>>     int x,y;
>> }
>>
>> void main(){
>>     S s;
>>     auto p = &s.y;
>>     // ...
>> }
>
> How does C++ for .NET handle this?

It didn't. Microsoft is about to do that. I'm thinking I should be a little asheamed. What do you think?

David Piepgrass wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 16:32:10 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
>>>> .NET is too limited to represent the language,
>>> Can you tell us why?
>> Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).
>
> D is theoretically designed

That is to say it is non-designed.

Mike Parker wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 12:30 AM, EngineerSpock wrote:
>> There is a couple of questions.
>
>> 4. Are there many libraries for D? Can D just use C\C++ dll's without pain for programmer?
>>
>
> There are a number of libraries covering different domains,

More ammo for a war that does not exist?